Tag Archives: select committee

International agreements: what is parliament’s role, and why does this matter?

Posted on by

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Treaties and other international agreements have a major effect on citizens’ day-to-day lives. But the mechanisms for parliamentary involvement in scrutinising and agreeing them are widely considered inadequate. Lisa James and Arabella Lang explain how these mechanisms work, and how they might be reformed.

Background

International treaties and other agreements are vital policy tools in a world where many problems and solutions cross borders. But the UK parliament has limited involvement in them, which is increasingly considered inadequate. Parliamentary committees such as the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Lords International Agreements Committee, and the former Commons International Trade Committee – as well as external experts – have consistently called for a greater role for parliament in both making and approving international agreements.

What are international agreements?

International agreements vary hugely in their scale and scope. They include large trade agreements between several states, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which the UK is in the process of joining; security, data or visa agreements between two governments; international human rights and refugee conventions; and agreements governing international organisations such as the EU or UN. At one extreme, it can take years to set a negotiating mandate, conduct negotiations, agree and sign a text, implement and ratify the agreement, and bring it into force. Or, at its simplest, an agreement might consist of an exchange of letters between two states.

International agreements also vary in their effects. Some are legally binding treaties, with consequences under international law for any breaches. Others are not legally binding but still have political force, and may entail spending commitments or have other significant impacts. The UK–Rwanda agreement on offshoring asylum seekers, for example, was initially a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding, before the two governments negotiated a binding treaty.

During the UK’s EU membership, many of the international agreements affecting the country were negotiated and scrutinised at EU level. Following Brexit, the UK is now conducting more of its own international negotiations. This has brought increasing attention to how those negotiations and the resulting agreements are – or should be – scrutinised and approved domestically.

Continue reading →

Why the UK should have a Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution

Posted on by

Last year, the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy published a Review of the UK Constitution. One recommendation in that review was that parliament create a joint committee on the constitution. Steph Coulter sets out the case for such a body.

As part of our recently completed Review of the UK Constitution, the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute for Public Policy outlined the key issues with the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and made recommendations for reform. We highlighted the lack of clarity within a system underpinned by an uncodified constitution and the failure of existing political checks to deter constitutional impropriety.

Given the UK system’s reliance on parliamentary sovereignty as its central constitutional principle, we believe that parliament should be central to addressing these issues. Therefore, one of our key recommendations was the establishment of a new Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, comprised of members from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. By acting as a central and authoritative constitutional guardian, such a body would go some way to improving constitutional clarity and would provide a more effective check on unconstitutional behaviour than existing arrangements.

Continue reading →

Public appointments: what are they, and why do they matter?

Posted on by

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Public appointments – senior appointments made by ministers to various public service roles – are vital to the working of government, but some have attracted controversy in recent years. Lisa James explains how public appointments work, and how they might be reformed.

Background

Public appointments – various senior appointments made by ministers to public bodies – can have a major impact on how well the public sector operates. Though the system often works smoothly, recent years have seen some high-profile controversies linked to public appointments, notably those surrounding Paul Dacre’s application to be chair of Ofcom, and the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC. These and other cases have raised questions about whether the system now needs additional safeguards.

Why do public appointments matter?

These appointments include senior roles across a wide range of public bodies – including delivery or policy advisory bodies, regulators and funders, as well as departmental non-executive directors. They also include individual roles (for example, commissioners for victims, further education, or children).

The holders of public appointments can therefore have a major impact on the successful delivery of policy and services. A well-functioning public appointments process, which can engage and deliver the best candidates, matters for the quality of governance. This is demonstrated in countries where control over appointments has allowed backsliding leaders (i.e. those who seek to erode democracy) to install allies in key positions.

Given that the holders of public appointments are so important to the working of government, ministers understandably want to be confident that these posts are held by people who are in sympathy with their aims and approach. But it is important for public trust – and successful delivery – that appointments are also made on merit, and cronyism or patronage is guarded against.

Continue reading →

Parliamentary scrutiny: what is it, and why does it matter?

Posted on by

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Parliamentary scrutiny is at the heart of UK politics. In this post, Meg Russell and Lisa James examine the four key methods of parliamentary scrutiny, and offer proposals on how to strengthen it, calling for better behaviour by government and strong engagement from backbenchers.

Background

Parliament lies at the heart of UK politics. The legislature is a core institution in any democracy, but is particularly important in the UK, due to our tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. The government is dependent on the confidence of the House of Commons, which can potentially remove it from office. Parliamentary consent is required for primary legislation, and parliament is a particularly central and important body in holding ministers to account day-to-day.

This makes scrutiny – the detailed examination of policy proposals, actions and plans – one of the essential roles of parliament. Other functions include representation, and serving as a space for national debate – which in turn feed into parliament’s scrutiny function.

This briefing summarises why parliamentary scrutiny matters, what different kinds of parliamentary scrutiny exist at Westminster, some recent concerns about the decline of scrutiny, and ways in which it can be protected and strengthened.

Why does parliamentary scrutiny matter?

The government is responsible for much day-to-day decision-making, in terms of national policy formulation and implementation. But the government itself is not directly elected, and depends for its survival on the continued confidence of the House of Commons. This makes parliament one of the central checks and balances in the constitution – arguably the most central one of all. To provide government accountability, one of the core functions of parliament is scrutiny.

Continue reading →